People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

From Hope & Change ...

... to Tax The Rich.

That's now Barack Obama's campaign theme.

It'll work for those who simply want people unlike themselves punished.  Tax 'em!  Make 'em bleed!

But a plan to return America to prosperity?

Make the case, Barry.  Be President for just a moment and make the case.

- - -

See also "Centerpiece Of Obama Re-election Campaign Is Far Left."

Voters are too smart to fall for this.

- - -

To show just how disingenuous Obama's Eat The Rich campaign is, see "Just a reminder: “Buffett Rule” that Obama won’t stop talking about is aimed mainly at around 400 taxpayers."

- - -

From "The Obama Rule" in today's Wall Street Journal:
Forget Warren Buffett, or whatever other political prop the White House wants to use for its tax agenda. This week the Administration officially endorsed what in essence is the Obama Rule: Taxes must be high simply to spread the wealth, never mind the impact on the economy or government revenue. It's all about "fairness," baby.

The policy goal is to impose an effective minimum tax of 30% on the income of anyone who makes more than $1 million a year. When President Obama first proposed this new minimum tax he declared that the rule "could raise enough money" so that we "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade."

Then he added: "This is not politics; this is math." Well, remedial math maybe.

The Obama Treasury's own numbers confirm that the tax would raise at most $5 billion a year—or less than 0.5% of the $1.2 trillion fiscal 2012 budget deficit and over the next decade a mere 0.1% of the $45.43 trillion the federal government will spend. When asked about those revenue projections, White House aide Jason Furman backpedaled from Mr. Obama's rationale by explaining that the tax was never intended "to bring the deficit down and the debt under control."

Okay. So what is the point?
The point? Obviously, if it's not intended to raise all that much cash for the Treasury, the point(s) are to (a) punish the successful among us, and (b) get Obama's sorry ass reelected.

I'm trying to remember the last presidential campaign that had as its centerpiece the call for punishing Americans who have broken no laws and done no harm. Has there ever been one? Theodore Roosevelt maybe?  Woodrow Wilson?

"In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"
-- Barack Obama, a long, long time ago --

- - -

Is Obama being given too much credit? Is it possible that he's just not smart enough to figure all this all?

A good argument can be made. After all, the constitutional scholar who doesn't know what the Supreme Court is all about is the same wealth redistributionist who declares with a straight face ... ... I'm not trying to 'redistribute wealth'.